Universal health insurance

[ribozyme]

No. They should just shut up and go away. Who cares if they die? They’re part of the excess population anyway.

That’s the right wing idea, anyway.

The reserve army of labor is necessary for right-wing economic agendas.

I am shocked about the apparent concern about the “unborn” and this disregard of the suffering outside the aegis of the womb by the same group. I most certainly do not advocate abandoning the living (in this case, we will define them as people out of the womb.)

Utilitarianism and Christianity are not compatible.

What is wrong with utilitarianism? If applied utilitarian ethics results in less poor people than Christianity, I believe it is a superior ethical system.

 

[Oscarthecat]

No. They should just shut up and go away. Who cares if they die? They’re part of the excess population anyway.

That’s the right wing idea, anyway.

That is exactly the kind of rationale made for euthanasia. I don’t recall any right wingers in favor of euthanasia, but I do hear it is gaining popularity in France, the modern Mecca of socialized medicine.

 

[po18guy]

That is exactly the kind of rationale made for euthanasia. I don’t recall any right wingers in favor of euthanasia, but I do hear it is gaining popularity in France, the modern Mecca of socialized medicine.

That was just a little left-kneejerk hyperbole. It’s all about cost containment. Government, private industry, does it matter? How about spending as much time reducing costs? That would be compassionate.

Christ’s peace.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

That was just a little left-kneejerk hyperbole. It’s all about cost containment. Government, private industry, does it matter? How about spending as much time reducing costs? That would be compassionate.

Christ’s peace.

Reducing costs = denying care or insurance

 

[Caesar517]

What is wrong with utilitarianism? If applied utilitarian ethics results in less poor people than Christianity, I believe it is a superior ethical system.

That’s the problem with utilitarianism: there is no consideration of how something is achieved, only the end result is important. If you want to go more in depth with utilitarianism vs Christianity, start your own thread; let’s not derail this one.

 

[Oscarthecat]

Reducing costs = denying care or insurance

In socialized health programs, this is referred to as “rationing,” and it is happening right now in England, Canada, and France.

 

[goofyjim]

Jim, it is not true that no one offers solutions. I have suggested MSAs:

I have also recommended allowing people to shop for health insurance across state lines (which is illegal at the present time) and to allow unafiliated businesses to band together to bargain for health insurance for employees (also illegal at the present time.)

Both of which ideas only help those who are able to work fulltime or have money to save. Now what to do for the disabled from a very young age.

 

[Sailka]

Reducing costs = denying care or insurance

                                                                                                                                                                                         No! We pay Twice as much per person  for "health care"  than the Next  biggest paying country. The problem appears to be  we now have Tens of Thousands of Health Business, for Profit, since  HMO's etc were established in 1980's.                                       
                                                                                           Again, National  (propagandized as socialist,  politically)   Universal Health systems  cost less than half as  much, and are more effective.   And everyone is covered.

 

[Sailka]

In socialized health programs, this is referred to as “rationing,” and it is happening right now in England, Canada, and France.

                                                                                                                                                                                          Oscar, We ration by  ability to pay.  And our system costs more than twice as much percapita.

 

[Oscarthecat]

The reserve army of labor is necessary for right-wing economic agendas.

I am shocked about the apparent concern about the “unborn” and this disregard of the suffering outside the aegis of the womb by the same group. I most certainly do not advocate abandoning the living (in this case, we will define them as people out of the womb.)

here we go again- the recurring accusation that anyone opposed to UHC must just not care about people.

What is wrong with utilitarianism? If applied utilitarian ethics results in less poor people than Christianity, I believe it is a superior ethical system.

Utilitarian ethics are based on the idea that “the good” can be defined as that which maximizes happiness and minimizes unhappiness. This is called the “principle of greatest happiness.” While this may sound nice on the surface, two of the many problems with utilitarianism are that it cannot be applied uniformly because it is highly relativistic, and that the application of utilitarianism in social groups becomes a vehicle to justify the subjugation of one group by the enforcement of a condition which simultaneously causes pleasure to a larger group and pain to a smaller group.

Therefore, under utilitarianism, no value is absolute. For example, it would be justifiable, according to utilitarian ethics, for a family of four to use a slave, because 4 people are made happy, and only 1 person is made unhappy. Therefore, there is a net gain of happiness in that family.

It should be obvious that this is a flawed system because no amount of happiness for that family can justify the fact that they have enslaved a human being.

The Catholic response to utilitarianism, in short, is that some values are greater than others, and some are absolute, meaning they can never justifiably be violated. To use the example of slavery, it doesn’t matter how happy those four people are made by having a slave-slavery is always and everywhere unjust and wrong.

Therefore, in regard to this topic,
Universal Health Care attempts to achieve a particular value for one group by denying particular values to another.

It is true that this is also happening under the current system as individuals are placing their own happiness, in terms of financial wealth, over the health and basic needs of others.

But it is not right to say that, because the current system violates the rights of one group that we should advocate for a different system that violates the rights of another group.

Instead, the correct position is, as I have been saying all along, to admit that our current system is flawed, and also recognize that UHC is not a viable solution because it is also flawed. We don’t want to exchange one flawed system for another.

The reason that the Catholic Church emphasizes the process of achieving social justice is because the only way to achieve a social structure that respects the rights of all people is to focus on the process as it develops, and not on a singular end result.

 

[Oscarthecat]

                                                                                                                                                                                          Oscar, We ration by  ability to pay.  And our system costs more than twice as much percapita.

No, rationing is the deliberate restriction of goods or services by a governmental body. When something is rationed, it is unavailable to all people regardless of ability to pay.

In a free market system, services are not rationed, but are priced according to what the market can bear. If someone sees that a significant portion of the population cannot afford a service at the standard price, they can engage in entrepreneurship by providing that service at a reduced rate, on the assumption that they will still make a profit by selling a higher volume at a lower rate. This is the same principal that has made Wal-mart into an economic powerhouse by selling inexpensive goods to those who are on lower budgets, while other retailers also make money by providing high end goods to individuals who want and are able to pay more. I shouldn’t have to point out that most people who shop at walmart are generally happy with that particular balance of quality and savings, while those who shop elsewhere are generally content to pay more for better quality. Yes, there are people who shop at walmart but wish they could afford to shop elsewhere, but their basic needs are still being met.

In the same way, one of the major problems with US healthcare is that the government has regulated healthcare to the point that it is practically impossible for entrepreneurs to experiment with different healthcare models that are based on these same economic principles.

Maybe a better example of this is in dentistry, which is not as strictly regulated as other types healthcare in the US. There are dentists right now, for example, who have very basic equipment, and charge very low rates. There are also dentists who have the latest greatest equipment, and charge very high rates. Both are still providing good quality care.

I expect that the most common response to my analogy is going to be “Oh, so you want a system of healthcare for poor people that is just like walmart? Yadda yadda yadda.”

So just let me say, in advance, this is just an analogy, and every analogy has its limits.

 

[Oscarthecat]

                                                                                                                                                                                         No! We pay Twice as much per person  for "health care"  than the Next  biggest paying country. The problem appears to be  we now have Tens of Thousands of Health Business, for Profit, since  HMO's etc were established in 1980's.                                       
                                                                                           Again, National  (propagandized as socialist,  politically)   Universal Health systems  cost less than half as  much, and are more effective.   And everyone is covered.

Everyone is covered to the extent that the government in charge of healthcare decides they are covered. Unless, of course, they have a lot of expendable wealth, then they can pay private doctors in other countries to treat them. No thanks.

 

[jean8]

Ditto on this comment. I would be happy to scrap the $500 billion plus military budget and provide everyone with universal health care. It is not a matter of money, it is just a matter of who gets it.

Interesting note: the military provides its members with fairly universal (dare we say socialized) health care…

Military Health Care?
My husband was a twenty year veteran. As a widow, I now have Tri-Care which is a very good health plan. However, twenty years was a long time to earn this benifit.
The medical care I received while my husband was on active duty was poor. I went to a civilian doctor instead and paid for my care myself.
So much for the Govn.

jean8

 

[Sailka]

No, rationing is the deliberate restriction of goods or services by a governmental body. When something is rationed, it is unavailable to all people regardless of ability to pay.

In a free market system, services are not rationed, but are priced according to what the market can bear. If someone sees that a significant portion of the population cannot afford a service at the standard price, they can engage in entrepreneurship by providing that service at a reduced rate, on the assumption that they will still make a profit by selling a higher volume at a lower rate. This is the same principal that has made Wal-mart into an economic powerhouse by selling inexpensive goods to those who are on lower budgets, while other retailers also make money by providing high end goods to individuals who want and are able to pay more. I shouldn’t have to point out that most people who shop at walmart are generally happy with that particular balance of quality and savings, while those who shop elsewhere are generally content to pay more for better quality. Yes, there are people who shop at walmart but wish they could afford to shop elsewhere, but their basic needs are still being met.

In the same way, one of the major problems with US healthcare is that the government has regulated healthcare to the point that it is practically impossible for entrepreneurs to experiment with different healthcare models that are based on these same economic principles.

I expect that the most common response to my analogy is going to be “Oh, so you want a system of healthcare for poor people that is just like walmart? Yadda yadda yadda.”

So just let me say, in advance, this is just an analogy. There are dentists right now, for example, who have very basic equipment, and charge very low rates. There are also dentists who have the latest greatest equipment, and charge very high rates. Both are still providing good quality care.

                                                                                                                                                                                          Our Healthcare system, on which we pay twice as much percapita  than the next highest cost, which is National   (Not "socialist) univeral health care.    And  our problem is the tens of thousands of for profit Businesses in it, with vast beaurocracies.                                                                          
                                                                                           Our system is far less regulated than those National systems, which are far more efficient.                                                        
                                                                                           And our system is based on  ability to buy/pay.  Which is why only Mexico has higher Infant mortality raqte than us. We  have dropped to  43rd.  


                                   
                                                                                           I know of  Foreign medical students who will  Not practice in the USA because  of the Massive paperwork involved  with our insurance Beurocracies.   And my RN  sister moved to France to work in their National Health system, called the best in the world.       Ours is best only for wealthy people who can buy the best healthcare.

 

[Oscarthecat]

                                                                                                                                                                                          Our Healthcare system, on which we pay twice as much percapita  than the next highest cost, which is National   (Not "socialist) univeral health care.    And  our problem is the tens of thousands of for profit Businesses in it, with vast beaurocracies.                                                                          
                                                                                           Our system is far less regulated than those National systems, which are far more efficient.                                                        
                                                                                           And our system is based on  ability to buy/pay.  Which is why only Mexico has higher Infant mortality raqte than us. We  have dropped to  43rd.

You are making a lot of claims without providing primary sources for your data. If your primary source includes studies conducted by the UN/WHO or countries practicing UHC, you might want to read earlier posts where that data was discussed.

I know of Foreign medical students who will Not practice in the USA because of the Massive paperwork involved with our insurance Beurocracies. And my RN sister moved to France to work in their National Health system, called the best in the world. Ours is best only for wealthy people who can buy the best healthcare.

I know foreign doctors who left their homes and came to this country to practice medicine because they were tired of being forced to provide outdated or insufficient treatment just because the government refused to pay for more.

I also know doctors from the US who have moved to foreign countries with socialized medicine because they can make a fortune providing private healthcare to the wealthy.

I agree that the US healthcare system is broken. But nothing that you have said demonstrates that socialized medicine is not also broken.

Why would I choose one broken system over another.

I would rather encourage the free market to find new solutions.

 

[Oscarthecat]

Both of which ideas only help those who are able to work fulltime or have money to save. Now what to do for the disabled from a very young age.

I’ve answered this question before, Jim. My answer hasn’t changed, so I’m not going to retype it again.

 

[Sailka]

You are making a lot of claims without providing primary sources for your data. If your primary source includes studies conducted by the UN/WHO or countries practicing UHC, you might want to read earlier posts where that data was discussed.

I know foreign doctors who left their homes and came to this country to practice medicine because they were tired of being forced to provide outdated or insufficient treatment just because the government refused to pay for more.

I also know doctors from the US who have moved to foreign countries with socialized medicine because they can make a fortune providing private healthcare to the wealthy.

I agree that the US healthcare system is broken. But nothing that you have said demonstrates that socialized medicine is not also broken.

Why would I choose one broken system over another.

I would rather encourage the free market to find new solutions.

                                                                                                                                                                                          **We pay more than twice as much per capita as the next highest paying countries, which have national health care, not  political  spin 'socialist'.   And it is not because of federal regulations.         NPR  said that the French National health care is the best in the world. They don't lie or spin.  **

 

[Oscarthecat]

                                                                                                                                                                                          **We pay more than twice as much per capita as the next highest paying countries, which have national health care, not  political  spin 'socialist'.   And it is not because of ferdaral regulations.         NPR  said that the French National health care is the best in the world. They don't lie or spin.  **

You are nothing if not persistent.
You have already provided your information about socialized healthcare in other countries.
Please provide a primary source. Just saying “NPR said so” isn’t sufficient because, in addition to NPR’s liberal bias, for all I know you might have been listening to an interview where a pundit simply made up or spun the data you keep posting.

 

[ribozyme]

Utilitarian ethics are based on the idea that “the good” can be defined as that which maximizes happiness and minimizes unhappiness. This is called the “principle of greatest happiness.” While this may sound nice on the surface, two of the many problems with utilitarianism are that it cannot be applied uniformly because it is highly relativistic, and that the application of utilitarianism in social groups becomes a vehicle to justify the subjugation of one group by the enforcement of a condition which simultaneously causes pleasure to a larger group and pain to a smaller group.

Therefore, under utilitarianism, no value is absolute. For example, it would be justifiable, according to utilitarian ethics, for a family of four to use a slave, because 4 people are made happy, and only 1 person is made unhappy. Therefore, there is a net gain of happiness in that family.

It should be obvious that this is a flawed system because no amount of happiness for that family can justify the fact that they have enslaved a human being.

The Catholic response to utilitarianism, in short, is that some values are greater than others, and some are absolute, meaning they can never justifiably be violated. To use the example of slavery, it doesn’t matter how happy those four people are made by having a slave-slavery is always and everywhere unjust and wrong.

Therefore, in regard to this topic,
Universal Health Care attempts to achieve a particular value for one group by denying particular values to another.

It is true that this is also happening under the current system as individuals are placing their own happiness, in terms of financial wealth, over the health and basic needs of others.

But it is not right to say that, because the current system violates the rights of one group that we should advocate for a different system that violates the rights of another group.

Instead, the correct position is, as I have been saying all along, to admit that our current system is flawed, and also recognize that UHC is not a viable solution because it is also flawed. We don’t want to exchange one flawed system for another.

The reason that the Catholic Church emphasizes the process of achieving social justice is because the only way to achieve a social structure that respects the rights of all people is to focus on the process as it develops, and not on a singular end result.

I personally advocate negative utilitarianism which emphasizes focusing on reducing suffering instead of maximizing pleasure.

 

[Sailka]

You are nothing if not persistent.
You have already provided your information about socialized healthcare in other countries.
Please provide a primary source. Just saying “NPR said so” isn’t sufficient because, in addition to NPR’s liberal bias, for all I know you might have been listening to an interview where a pundit simply made up or spun the data you keep posting.

                                                                                                                                                                                         Since when is Truth, Honesty  a  bad evil called "liberal"?   "Liberal"  is a  demonizing evil by those  who 'have own agerda' on 'reality', which is disconnected from honesty.  Current political spin of using 'liberal'  replaces 'communist', with the also currently used "socialist'.   Name-calling  to defame the unliked is not Catholic.     And am True conservative, very traditional  but caring  and socially conscious  as Our Lord  and Church are. 
                                                                                   National Public Radio is the  Most trusted News  source in the USA, because it is very honest  and wide ranging coverage.